10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

What an oxymoron.How can you be a scientist and political? The two are totally incompatable.

These self named 'scientists' are only pretend' scientists, scientists in their own minds only.

 

Like others I have to question this statement as I'm unaware of any athiests that have tried to take "God" from public view. They have objected to the government's promotion of religion that really started in the 1950's when the Christians wanted to frame the "Cold War" as a conflict between Christians and the "Godless" Russians. The corruption of the Pledge of Allegence and adopting of "In God We Trust" were clear indications of Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs on Americans through our political institutions. The hanging of the 10 Commandments on a court house is offensive as it is the government endorsement of a specific religion.

We are not "One nation under God" but instead we're a nation under the US Constitution.

We do not Trust in God but instead we're a nation of one comprised of many (E Pluribus Unum - "out of many, one").

The laws of the United States are not based upon the Bible but instead are based upon the inalienable Rights of the People.

If Christians want to display the 10 Commandments they can do so freely with the approval of the athiests so long as they do it on private land.

If Christians want to trust in God they can do so freely with the approval of the athiests so long as they do in in their personal lives and don't try to force athiests to trust in what they believe to be a mythical entity.

If the Christians want to believe that the United States is "onr nation under God" then they can do so privately but don't try to force that belief on others by passing laws.

If Christians don't believe in same-sex marriage because of their religion then don't marry someone of the same sex but don't deny that Right to others.

If Christians believe that abortion is a mortal sin then don't have an abortion but don't deny that medical procedure to someone else that doesn't hold their religious beliefs.

It isn't the athiests that are creating the conflict but instead it's the Christians that are trying to impose their religious beliefs upon non-Christians through the laws of the land. Why do so many Christians fail to understand this simple fact?

 

Couldn't help but notice there was one myth it didn't debunk. Atheists are arrogant and self-righteous.

 

Idunno...wasn't the freedom of US established in response to oppression without consent and the main argument was that GOD--a CREATOR--endowed man with certain rights?

Why would an atheist want to knock down the foundation upon which his freedom to be atheist is built?

 

I agree that it's a common myth, but it's kind of covered by item 3, the "rude aggressive" myth.

 

The Declaration of Independence does not mention "god" but does mention the "creator" which can be Mother Nature (another mythical entity). As we know from science man evolved from lower life forms and was not created by any entity. In a historical context Thomas Jefferson used the arguments of John Locke who was religious in composing the Declaration of Independence and who used god in his arguments. Of course the ideal of government protecting the "unalienable" Rights of the People is unrelated to where those Rights originated as they are deemed to be inherent in the individual.

We can also note that the Declaration of Independence does NOT state that the role of government was to enforce religious beliefs and, in fact, the founders of America rejected that belief completely. Religious beliefs, as we see today, often seek to violate the "unalienable" Rights of the People.

 

Powerful post

 

The truth hurts, I would suggest reading your holy book a bit more closely.

None of what I just posted is new, or revealing. I have posted that same content on more than one occasion.

I oppose living life worshiping nothing, and using nothing to oppress other people. A virtuous life without worship is so much beneficial.

 

No--it SPECIFICALLY says "nature's God" Which is God. God is capitalized--it is an entity of sovereign power higher than man's power. Period. Any claim otherwise is ignorant.

Baloney. The Constitution clearly states that the free exercise of religion is an explicitly guaranteed right. There is no right to freedom FROM religion.

 

Unfortunately, it's an entirely wrong post.


I suppose it's "powerfully wrong!"

 

True, however I believe atheism has associated philosophies.

You can still be an atheist and subscribe to X, like secular Humanism, non-theistic Buddhism, etc. I am mostly looking for an anchor point to base ethics and morals on...... seems that Humanism already coincides with my beliefs quite nicely.

 

This, on the other hand, is a powerless post

 

If a certain political policy is supported by science, lets say, that dumping radioactive in playgrounds waste is found to be harmful, then you can use that to take a political position to promote beneficial change.

 

Thank you, very well said.

 

Did you, at any point, find your post ironic?

 

I do stand corrected as the term "nature's God" is in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Of course "nature's God" would be referring to "Mother Nature" which we all know to be a fictitious entity. As also noted the origins of the wording, to a large degree, were taken from John Locke and John Locke being a "religious" man used "God" in his arguments related to natural Rights.

The actual quotation being referenced is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Laws that involve religion, such as "In God We Trust" which has been erroneously established as the National Motto is the establishment of religion by the government IMO. I don't "Trust God" as trust must be earned and I've seen no evidence of any gods and certainly nothing warranting my trust.

As I've also noted the United States is not a "nation under God" but instead is a nation under the US Constitution.

It must also be admitted that the laws of the United States are not based upon the 10 Commandments which is why they shouldn't be posted on a wall in a courthouse. Out of the 10 Commandments there are no laws related to 6 of them and the other four are merely a coincidence.

The fact is that Christians have long attempted to impose their religious beliefs through their voting power on all of Americans. For example the prohibition of same-sex marriage which originated in the 1970's is highly discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and is based exclusively upon religious beliefs.

 

It certainly does not. It refers to an unnamed God, Creator of all things. If one perceives God as Mother Nature, that person has the freedom to do so. Nevertheless--the concept of "God" as a sovereign entity--whomever that God be--is indeed where the unalienable rights and freedom of our country are derived. It is EXPLICIT.

So? More evidence that the foundation upon which rests our freedoms are philosophies acknowledging the sovereignty of God.

What "God"??? What religion's God is referenced? As noted, the DoI acknowledges a Creator God--you further support the "God" reality in our foundation as a nation through Locke. Where is any specific religion mentioned?

Simply acknowledging God is not establishing a particular form that God takes--and the freedom you have to deny God's existence is legitimate only by our nation' documents that (upon reasoning that presumes God's existence) acknowledge your right to do so.

Yeah that's why they are represented on the doors of the Supreme Court.

Judeo Christian belief is among the many influences on law in our country. Deny it all you want, but i don't see you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the depictions of Hammurabi and Muhammad that are also in the architecture of the Supreme Court. How about the "Goddess of Liberty"?? Or maybe..Confucius, who is also represented, or perhaps the God-man of ancient Egypt, Menes.

No...just Christian symbols of God or people related to a particular view of God (Jewish/Christian) are targeted by you (and others).

Oh God... why does it always come back to the gay-marriage thing? There are other threads on that. In fact--in that thread (I don't know, maybe he was joking, but...) it was suggested that homosexuality be classed as a religion so as to accomplish same-sex marriage throughout the US.

Crazy, huh?

 

The point of the DoI wasn't to lay a religious basis for our rights... it was to make the point that rights are inherent to people the moment they are born, not granted by human agencies. Because rights granted by humans can just as easily be taken away by humans.

One does not need to believe in God to accept the idea of inalienable rights. One does not need a God to grant them.

 

Nonsense. Logically, the two are inextricably linked. One infers the other.

That aside however, are you trying to imply that atheists should be forced into some unspecified religion? Even if that wasn't your intention, it would be an undeniable consequence if your argument were true (it's not).

 

Lol, touche.

 

Let's look at a simple legal fact related to any god imagined.

If god exists then god is not an American and god would be an illegal alien if god showed up in the United States. He would be summarily arrested and deported. Of course I don't endorse trusting my country to any foreigners.

To be a sovereign entity first one must be an entity. Since "god" has never established that "god" exists and certainly exerts no jurisdiction in the United State the god really doesn't matter.

The natural (unalienable) Rights of the Individual (not the country as Countries have no natural Rights) are established by logic and deduction. They are those things that are inherent to the individual which do not infringe upon the rights of others. There is no "god" related to the natural Rights of the Individual.

 

Your argument is irrelevant due to the lack of definition of "god".

You are playing all sides leaving the definition open to whomever chooses to define god. However, we all know that you would invoke the biblical doctrine to define morals and rights, i.e. lets invoke the oppression of homosexuals for giggles.

If I claim a god that wants the greatest possible good for all human beings? Equal rioghts for all, and less stoning? Where does that leave you? Just as valid as I.

So, you can either leave the definition of god open, or be a little bit more genuine and honest in your argument and simple state you believe it is the god of the bible referenced in the DoI. In which case, your argument falls to pieces due to the separation of church and state.

 

Then why does it reference God as the source?

 

God is a term that is understood to mean an entity of higher power. What you want to claim is that God and religion are one and the same--they are not synonymous.


BTW--I ignored your obnoxious stoning comment.

 

A higher power that is pro-choice and in favor of equal rights, do you see how that works?

Your argument does not have an anchor point, it is open ended, and without definition. You claim that god is the basis of morals and values in government, but what morals and values? What are these morals and values based on? If the government is to based on god, why are there no provisions in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that allow such a thing?

You certainly cannot outright claim the Christian god, because they will discredit your argument, and claiming that it means any and all gods leaves the argument null and void. Leaving a disingenuous argument.